Plaintiff
Tareq Jabr, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, brings this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine, Assistant Attorney Generals James Dinsmore,
Christopher Bagi, and John Reichly, the Ohio Department of
Taxation, and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of
Magistrate Judge Jolson's January 18, 2017 Initial
Screening Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2)
recommending that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED on the
grounds that a litigant cannot collaterally attack a state
court judgment by filing a civil rights complaint in federal
court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. For the
reasons stated herein, upon de novo review in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), this Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's Objections, ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and hereby
DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims.

I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

If a
party objects within the allotted time to a report and
recommendation, the Court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendation to which the
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see
also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate
Judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

II.
ANALYSIS

This
Court agrees with the decision and analysis of the Magistrate
Judge. Each of the Plaintiff's two claims was already
litigated in state court. See Jabr v. Ohio Dep't of
Taxation, No. 16-AP-26 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. June 30,
2016); Jabr v. Ohio Dep't of Job and Family
Servs., No. 15AP-1141 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. June 30,
2016). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a
litigant from collaterally attacking a state court judgment
by filing a civil rights complaint. See Daniels v. State
of Ohio, No. 2:08-cv-16, 2008 WL 3843574, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 13, 2008). For this reason, this Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff is precluded from
bringing this action and his claims must be dismissed.

Moreover,
Plaintiff's Objections, though murky at best, seek a
contrary result based on a mere recitation of the allegations
levied against the Defendants in these prior state court
cases. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, alleging a right to
sue under the Ex parte Young doctrine. Ex parte
Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). This doctrine provides an
exception to sovereign immunity that “allows plaintiffs
to bring claims for prospective relief against state
officials sued in their official capacity to prevent future
federal constitutional or statutory violations.”
Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391, 412 (6th Cir. 2017).
However, this exception “does not extend to retroactive
relief or claims for money damages.” Id. Here,
Plaintiff brings two claims: 1) Defendants falsely accused
him of selling tobacco without paying taxes; and 2)
Defendants improperly deducted child support from his
disability payments. Plaintiff demands two million dollars,
alleging that due to the actions of the Defendants,
Plaintiff's physical and mental health has been adversely
affected. Plaintiff seeks both retroactive relief and
monetary damages. Therefore, the Ex parte Young
exception to sovereign immunity does not apply.

Moreover,
this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's ancillary
reasons for dismissal, for two reasons. First, Plaintiff is
precluded from suing the individual defendants because a
plaintiff may not assert claims for damages in federal court
against state employees in their official capacities, which
Plaintiff attempts here. See Will v. Michigan Dep't
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)
(“[N]either a state nor its officials acting in their
official capacities are ‘persons' under §
1983.”) Second, the Eleventh Amendment precludes
Plaintiff from suing the Ohio Department of Taxation and the
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. See Regents
of Univ. of Calif. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997)
(holding that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applies
to “state agents and instrumentalities”).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.